Ukrainian Political Regimes, the Donbas conflict, and Decentralisation in Comparative Perspective

在关于乌克兰和叙利亚的文章中，我将展开新的研究，对巴沙尔•阿萨德（Bashar al-Assad）和维克托•亚努科维奇（Viktor Yanukovych）政权进行结构化比较。我将展示在位的独裁政权如何部署平民团体来驱散威胁推翻政权和破坏现状的政治抗议。将叙利亚的沙比哈和乌克兰的图什基进行比较。我认为，如果一个独裁政权是真正的独裁，那么对武装平民的使用应该是系统的、暴力的，并且与国家有明确的联系。通过这种比较，我将质疑亚努科维奇政权是否像一些分析人士所说的那样是真正的威权主义。一旦发表在同行评议的期刊上，这篇文章将对全球从事威权主义弹性研究的学术界产生影响。我将使用一个跨越时空的新颖的比较。我已经在学术博客Strife上发表了这篇文章的简短版本，作为一个框架。我将对乌克兰和叙利亚的活动人士进行采访（远程），具体询问他们使用Shabiha和Titushki的情况。这篇关于美国和乌克兰比较的文章将详细讨论两国在各自的战前时期是如何达成精英妥协的，以及它们是如何帮助预防冲突的。我将讨论这两个案例之间的相似之处，并建立一个解释和平结果的“寡头和平”理论。乌克兰的权力下放改革（2014年至今）是一种新现象，是我在论文中调查的2014年事件的直接产物。对推行权力下放以解决冲突的国家进行的个案研究产生了好坏参半的结果。由Lijphart（1977）和最近由Miodownik（例如with et al.， 2004和与carmite， 2010）领导的一个学派认为，权力下放有助于政治稳定。罗德领导的另一个学派认为，权力下放给了一些团体从事破坏稳定的分离主义活动的资源。本研究的两个主要研究问题是：(1)权力下放是否有助于乌克兰的政治稳定？(2)乌克兰的分权模式对顿巴斯非政府控制区的居民有吸引力吗？因此，它是解决冲突的可行模式吗？我将通过观察乌克兰东南部的哈尔科夫和敖德萨地区来分析改革。我将以我的博士工作为基础，测试与权力下放如何影响当地抗议和当地精英行为有关的新假设。该项目将利用数字和印刷报纸报道，以及采访和我自己的民意调查。它将有助于增加关于权力下放对脆弱环境下政治稳定影响的案例研究文献。我的专著《乌克兰的顿巴斯冲突：精英、抗议和分裂》（将于2021年8月出版）的核心问题是，当地精英和活动家的行为如何最终导致了顿涅茨克的冲突结果和哈尔科夫的和平结果。根据对后苏联时代非正式政治、网络和赞助的见解，我解释了为什么顿涅茨克的精英们允许他们所在地区的激进亲俄主义活动，而哈尔科夫的精英们则相反。为了支持这一讨论，我从俄语、乌克兰语和英语的报纸报道、采访、社交媒体、视频和博客中汲取了丰富的证据。这本书有助于我们对乌克兰政治的理解，对顿巴斯冲突的文献，以及对精英和冲突的更广泛的文献。这本书对更广泛的政策界也很重要，尤其是在乌克兰的网络和预算政治方面

For the article on Ukraine and Syria, the new research strand I will develop involves a structured comparison between the regimes of Bashar al-Assad and Viktor Yanukovych. I will demonstrate how incumbent authoritarian regimes can deploy groups of civilians to disperse political protest that threatens to dislodge the regime and disrupt the status quo. A comparison will be drawn between the Syrian Shabiha and Titushki in Ukraine. I will argue that if an authoritarian regime is truly authoritarian, such use of armed civilians should be systematic, violent and clearly linked to the state.Through this comparison, I will question whether Yanukovych's regime was truly authoritarian as claimed by some analysts. Once it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, the article will generate impact on the academic community who work globally on the resilience of authoritarianism. I will use a novel comparison across space and time. I have already published a short version of this article for an academic blog Strife, which will serve as a framework. I will conduct interviews with activists in Ukraine and Syria (remotely) asking them specifically about the use of Shabiha and Titushki. The article on the USA-Ukraine comparison will provide a detailed discussion of how elite compromises were worked out in the two countries in the respective antebellum periods and how they helped forestall conflict. I will provide a discussion of the similarities between the two cases and build a theory of "oligarchic peace" that explains the outcome of peace. The decentralisation reform in Ukraine (2014 - present) is a new phenomenon that was a direct product of the events of 2014 investigated in my thesis. Case studies of countries that have pursued decentralisation to resolve conflicts have yielded mixed results. One school led by Lijphart (1977) and more recently by Miodownik (e.g. with et al., 2004 and with Cartrite, 2010) argues that decentralisation contributes to political stability. Another school led by Roeder argues that decentralisation gives groups resources to engage in secessionism undermining stability. The two main research questions of this research that will follow after this fellowship are: (1) Does decentralisation contribute to political stability across Ukraine? and (2) Is Ukraine's decentralisation model attractive to the residents of the non-government controlled area of the Donbas and, therefore, is it a viable model for conflict resolution? I will analyse the reform by looking at the Kharkiv and Odesa regions in south-eastern Ukraine. I will build on my doctoral work and test new hypotheses pertaining to how decentralisation affects local protest and the behaviours of local elites. The project will draw on digital and print newspaper reports as well as on interviews and my own public opinion survey. It will contribute to the growing case studies literature on the effects of decentralisation on political stability in fragile contexts.The puzzle at the heart of my monograph "The Donbas Conflict in Ukraine: Elites, Protest, and Partition", to be published by August 2021, focuses on how the behaviours of local elites and activists definitively contributed to the conflict outcome in Donets'k and the peace outcome in Kharkiv. Drawing on the insights from the literature on informal politics, networks and patronage in the post-Soviet space, I have explained why the elites in Donets'k allowed radical pro-Russian activism in their region while their counterparts in Kharkiv did the opposite. To support the discussion, I have drawn on the rich evidence from newspaper reports, interviews, social media, videos and blogs in Russian, Ukrainian and English. The book contributes to our understanding of Ukrainian politics, the literature on the Donbas conflict, and the broader literature on elites and conflicts. The book is also important for the broader policy community, especially when it comes to networks and budgetary politics in Ukraine